请教og11-67，超难的句子，分析不清楚。之前的帖子已经看过了

21.
                Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but
                in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for
                    their actions.
(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food
(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior

这个句子已经讨论过好几次了，我想问的是，这个句子似乎有两个主语，defense attorneys和the perpetrators。为什么中间的介词短语的逻辑主语，不能是律师呢？

律师会偶尔为了食物过敏而辩护，但是（律师）把罪行归咎为食物，那么犯罪被告就可以被告知他们不用负责了。

括号中的”律师“，一定要变成”被告“吗？

谢谢哦

那么A不行的理由是？

perpetrator他不会主动attributing，所以逻辑关系不成立？

idiom：some food allergy－－》some food allergies

       an allergy to some food

谢谢诸位哦

我也觉得是这个道理。。。。